The existence of God

Post Reply New Topic

all people who commit suicide by hanging go to SUPERHEAVEN (which rocks way more than regular heaven, btw.).

want proof? try it.

i am the greatest motherf****ng being in existence! i'm so motherf****ng great, i CREATED existence! believe this claim or go to HELL (which rocks way less than regular heaven, btw.)

want proof? try it.

apples and oranges? more like a**holes and oranges.

so... i "must take a giant leap of faith" in order to say "i don't know exactly how the universe was created, but it probably didn't happen in any of the ways ancient people who didn't even realize the earth wasn't the center of the solar system, let alone the universe said it happened?"

and it would require less faith to believe that the universe was created by a god who is required for the creation of said universe because he is the exception to a "well-established law... ...which has no exception" because he "had nothing to do one morning and so decided to try something different...and so 'poof' ... creation." ...really?

...
...
...really??

so, the big bang theory doesn't work because it may require an extra-dimensional source.... which is preposterous! obviously the correct answer is "god created the universe because the universe has to have had a beginning (big bang) which requires a divine creator (extra-dimensional source)! duh!"



dumb theist: "a child's cancer was cured after my pastor laid hands on him" [[[refrain from joke]]]
dumb atheist: "god isn't real, dumbass. if god was real, why would we have cancer?"
smart theist: "you can't disprove god with science because science exists within creation and god exists outside of it."
smart atheist: "if you can't prove something exists, i don't need to worry about proving that it doesn't."
hilarious atheist: "god totally exists and i'm his son/prophet/priest. he wants you to do whatever i say or he'll be very very grumpy at you."

Atheists have no burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the one who asserts existence. It is up to him/her to produce evidence for the existence of whatever they claim exists. Refusal to except existence in the absence of evidence has no burden. Think about it: what does an atheist say? He says I do not believe your god exists because you have not given me sufficient proof to accept its existence.

ruveyn

why so SHRILL, ruveyn?

well, I would say it depends on which atheists you are referring to, as I believe that strong (and strident) atheists usually use a rationalization on why a god must not exist rather than waiting for evidence.

Who said that reality was created ex nihilo? Frankly, the only thing we have is that reality started with a bang, but we don't have any data saying that "before the bang there was ABSOLUTELY nothing". In fact, some cosmological ideas include things like infinite pasts, and so on, while still being big bang tolerant. My own opinion is that if it is possible that matter existed for all time, which it is, then there is nothing to explain.


Well, technically, the "law of cause and effect" is partially proven as problematic given that quantum mechanics works by statistical laws.

Even further though, I think you've only heard half of an argument, as you haven't provided anything. At best, you hint at the cosmological argument, and the problem with this argument is that a *lot* of people question it, and in the end, the assumptions required are such that it is no longer actually a proof.


Ok?
1) Who cares about proofs, as most of life just goes on the "best evidence" rather than a deductive proof.
2) The kinds of deities that human beings continually talk about certainly do not exist, and perhaps can be disproven.
3) Occam's razor. If a theistic proof fails, then we are more correct to not believe in a deity.

I never said you were

Proving a negative is a logical impossibility.

Theorem: There do not exist non zero integers m, n such that (m/n)^2 = 2

Proof supplied on request.

ruveyn

Why is it possible for god to have been always existent but not matter. this one always makes me laugh. Basically we don't know what created the prerequisites for the 'BIg Bang', but to define finite laws and then break them to allow for a superbeing, is plain stupid.



I think Bertrand Russel got to the bottom of this dumb ass premise a very long time ago. It is a question of probabilities, because you make a positive claim that cannot be proven does not make it plausible or indeed probable. Indeed your claim above is as moronic as saying this quote from Animal house is true "That means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being" and the inability to absolutely disprove it makes it probable.

Can't vote. Too tired.

The proof of "god" is all around you, it's the ground you walk on, the water you drink and the food you eat. It is nature and all her bounty, she nourishes all of you and will destroy you if you tread recklessly. You cannot refute this fact, all religious belief has it's base in the earth, and science is simply a, albeit often damaging, tool to harness her gifts in a way to better suit the desires of human kind of the time.

She is the symbiosis of science and faith, she breaths, she's aware, she hurts (especially when human beings destroy vast tracts of her surface and dumps sh*t into her oceans). We are no better than her or all the beings that call her surface home. If anything it is her to whom we owe our gratitude every time we harvest her bounty for our own nourishment.

Sure I can. After all, conservative Christians really don't care about the Earth, global warming, or anything like that. How can you say they have their base in the Earth??

Because before christ, before his disciples and monotheism early human beings worshipped the powers of earth because they were absolutely major influences in their lives, the could see, feel, hear, smell and taste these powers, they lived and died by them; it was a more honest time if you ask me.

There is also archeological proof that this was the case.

Well, I know that early religion did come from something more like this.

Mostly my question was just smart alecky, as it is clear that many religions today don't actually worship the other. Even further, I would just take your theology to just be an anthropomorphization of inanimate matter.

Well it's a simple truth, and no you're right they don't, and it's a real shame because it would settle this "god" argument once and for all, it may have also prevented a good 2000 years of human conflict.

I really hope you're joking with your anthropomorphic theory, our planet is alive, all you need to do is open the curtains and take in it's majesty, believe me earth is FAR from inanimate.